The Voter Education Committee (VEC) asked the Supreme Court on Monday to review a case that has major implications for "McCain-Feingold" and state campaign finance laws throughout the nation.
The VEC challenges a Washington state law which requires any organization that supports or opposes a candidate or ballot issue to register as a "political committee" absent of express advocacy.
"The implications are huge for all of the states that, after McCain-Feingold, thought they could use broad standards to muzzle political speech," said Bradley A. Smith, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics.
The VEC contends that the "support or oppose" standard is overly vague and is too broad. The VEC argues that political committee status should only apply to non-party organizations that engage in express advocacy.
Express advocacy is any form of communication that can only be interpreted as urging the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for office using words such as "elect" or "defeat."
Penalties for failing to comply with the rules include civil fines and even jail time.
"The express advocacy standard was incredibly meaningful to organizations trying to comply with the law," said Stephen M. Hoersting, vice president of the Center for Competitive Politics. "Imposing these standards to non-party organizations chills political speech and essentially recreates the same vagueness problem that caused previous courts to apply express advocacy."
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance act includes similar provisions in dealing with state political parties as the challenged Washington state law. McCain-Feingold imposes regulations on state parties that engage in "federal election activity" and promote, support, attack, or oppose candidates for federal office. Unlike the Washington state law, McCain-Feingold did not impose the PASO standard on organizations other than political parties
